This post refers to a problem I got from a video here. There is also a web site where you can place your first idea. The problem is called Newcomb’s Paradox. Wikipedia has an entry about it too.
You have to select between two boxes. One contains 1000$. You do not know the content of the other box. You have to select to take either only this other box or both boxes. Now, the story goes on to invent a super-device who will put 1’000’000$ into the other box, if it predicts that you pick only that one box, and leave it empty if you pick both. They tell you that this super-device has successfully predicted „almost each“ choice of candidates so far.
The first simple idea is to pick both boxes, not caring about the prediction. After all, the content of the other box is fixed once you make your choice, and you simply cannot lose by taking both. If almost all people follow this practical idea, the device simply predicts that, and it is right almost every time. The story comes to a nice explanation. They don’t tell you if this is what happened in the past.
In reality, candidates who were presented with this story were split about 50:50 between both camps. So, maybe our nice ending is not what happened. Yet, they tell you that the predictor is right „almost every time“. This is evidence enough to select only one box. If the predictor is right this time too, we get a million. Why should it fail only at our try? Denying evidence is foolish. Maybe the box is filled with the money, after we select it, by some magical trick? Or there is another explanation we don’t know?
Be warned! Evidence needs to be checked carefully. A story and an uninspected box is not good enough. In some markets, you might find a guy with three cups and a ball. He will hide the ball under one cup and then shuffle the cups around in plain sight. Then he bets with a spectator that he will not select the cup with the ball correctly. You observe the betting for a long time and find that it is really easy to follow the cup with the ball. You have it right every time! Some spectators lose. But they were clearly not watching carefully. You start betting. You win and lose. But as soon as the stake is high enough, you will lose! Then the guy packs and vanishes, usually saying that he is afraid of the police. This scheme is not allowed in most countries by a good reason. You will learn in retrospect, that everything is staged, including the spectators, just to lure you into a game that you cannot win. So much about „evidence“.
There is also the question of „free will“. This is a diffuse concept, which has no real meaning, in the sense that can be tested scientifically. Modern physics tells us that there are limits of observability. So, a 100% correct prediction is not possible anyway. The discussion about „free choice“ does not matter at all. We are all fixed by our experiences and the lessons in younger years. But we are also part of our society and underly the physical reality. That will make us feel the consequences of our actions. We may or may not have learned to foresee those consequences.
The video also mentions attempts to avoid the „free choice“ of humans. Some military argued that the reaction to a nuclear attack should be automatic, not by a human. I do not want to participate in such a discussion. Nuclear weapons must go from this world, or they will destroy it I fear.